I understand (if there is ever consensus on the inherent nature of homosexuality as opposed to it being a choice) the rational behind sexual orientation becoming a protected class... which would immediately negate laws like this. No different then a religion saying they feel that black people are evil so they won't serve them or whatever. What I am still having problems with is why religious CHOICE constitutes a protected class. So, I'm allowed to not serve a neo-nazi or a KKK member or a socialist or any other group I find objectionable for their CHOSEN views but as soon as they justify those views by calling it "religion" I am forced to deal with them?

I think maybe the thing is that you asked if HE would support refusal of service, etc. He may not, but he would support others doing so.

He's a slippery one that patteeu. If a question has any way to wiggle through it by answering without actually responding, he'll sniff it out instantly.

It's been a long time since I agreed on much with Andrew Sullivan, but he has some useful things to say on the subject of how discrimination of the type you seem to fear (and which I think is unlikely to be much of a problem) should be handled. By way of Ed Morrisey:

Quote:

I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

I understand (if there is ever consensus on the inherent nature of homosexuality as opposed to it being a choice) the rational behind sexual orientation becoming a protected class... which would immediately negate laws like this. No different then a religion saying they feel that black people are evil so they won't serve them or whatever. What I am still having problems with is why religious CHOICE constitutes a protected class. So, I'm allowed to not serve a neo-nazi or a KKK member or a socialist or any other group I find objectionable for their CHOSEN views but as soon as they justify those views by calling it "religion" I am forced to deal with them?

Can someone explain the logic for this?

Gay marriage is the big con in order to get legalized protected status. Andrew Sullivan said so himself (paraphrasing) even IF gay marriage never gets acknowledged by SCOTUS as long as 'homosexuality' gets legalized protected status that is 'all that matters' because then you have 'legal power' as a protected class.

Pelosi is in the House.
The bill was being debated and amended in the Senate.
She was being asked about the contents of the bill.
Since it was going through debate and amendment in the Senate, she said it had to be passed by the Senate before she would know what was in it.

That's it.

LOL, and the world is a perfect round circle! She was riding Harry bareback, she knew what was in it as much as anybody in the Senate. In a perfect world she might not, but we all know that joint ain't exactly perfect. So pulling THAT card made her look the fool.

Gay marriage is the big con in order to get legalized protected status. Andrew Sullivan said so himself (paraphrasing) even IF gay marriage never gets acknowledged by SCOTUS as long as 'homosexuality' gets legalized protected status that is 'all that matters' because then you have 'legal power' as a protected class.

I don't have a problem with sexual orientation being a protected class as long as it is considered an inherent trait and not a chosen lifestyle. I am in the camp that thinks a person CAN be born gay so its fine for me to treat that trait as no different than race or color or country of origin. That being said I am totally against gay marriage rights but only because I am against SPECIAL govt involvement in marriage at all.

I don't have a problem with sexual orientation being a protected class as long as it is considered an inherent trait and not a chosen lifestyle. I am in the camp that thinks a person CAN be born gay so its fine for me to treat that trait as no different than race or color or country of origin. That being said I am totally against gay marriage rights but only because I am against SPECIAL govt involvement in marriage at all.

The problem with that is that marriage is really two distinct institutions. A religious institution and a legal institution.

It's been a long time since I agreed on much with Andrew Sullivan, but he has some useful things to say on the subject of how discrimination of the type you seem to fear (and which I think is unlikely to be much of a problem) should be handled. By way of Ed Morrisey:

I'd agree with that. These proposed laws however, are repugnant. It's a solution in search of a problem. And a solution that creates many more potential problems greater than the one it purportedly seeks to remedy.

By tying it to religious freedom they are opening a huge can of worms. They really should just say "It's ok to discriminate against homos."
It gets to the point of what they really want to do and doesn't legitimize discrimination for a whole range of other things that they really weren't focused on anyway.

I just wonder how it is that we've managed to avoid up till now the controversy of the evangelical Christian photographer being forced to take the gig at the Muslim wedding. Or the Wiccan wedding!

I'd agree with that. These proposed laws however, are repugnant. It's a solution in search of a problem. And a solution that creates many more potential problems greater than the one it purportedly seeks to remedy.

By tying it to religious freedom they are opening a huge can of worms. They really should just say "It's ok to discriminate against homos."
It gets to the point of what they really want to do and doesn't legitimize discrimination for a whole range of other things that they really weren't focused on anyway.

I just wonder how it is that we've managed to avoid up till now the controversy of the evangelical Christian photographer being forced to take the gig at the Muslim wedding. Or the Wiccan wedding!

I take it that you either didn't read the letter that I posted or you think, for some reason, that the authors are FOS?

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

I just wonder how it is that we've managed to avoid up till now the controversy of the evangelical Christian photographer being forced to take the gig at the Muslim wedding. Or the Wiccan wedding!

Religion is a protected class is why.. this law tries to make a point that sexual orientation is not. Something that is very likely to change shortly. And if you believe sexual orientation is something one is born into then I can't see any reasonable justification for it NOT being protected just like race.

I don't have a problem with sexual orientation being a protected class as long as it is considered an inherent trait and not a chosen lifestyle. I am in the camp that thinks a person CAN be born gay so its fine for me to treat that trait as no different than race or color or country of origin. That being said I am totally against gay marriage rights but only because I am against SPECIAL govt involvement in marriage at all.

Solid take.

__________________
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

I read it and said I agree with the sentiment. I didn't take it as an endorsement of the proposed law. Did you?

I took it as a statement that if someone doesn't want to make the cake for your gay wedding, don't sue them, just move on.

No, we're in agreement on that, but you read the Andrew Sullivan piece. I'm talking about the letter in post 34 which is an endorsement of the proposed law (or at least it's an endorsement by 9 of the 11 people who signed it with the other two not committing but agreeing that the law has been wildly distorted by it's critics).

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

I have no problem with the concept of marriage as a legal CONTRACT but I take issue with special treatment under the law. (tax breaks, etc)

I agree. I would rather that marriage was viewed as a legally binding social contract between consenting adults. The government would function as a record keeping device for these contracts. The only issue that the legal side would acknowledge for the religious side is in regards to who is authorized to perform a ceremony.